| In Graphical Derivatives, exercise #16 |
A graph has horizontal asymptotes pointing in the wrong direction. |
check
9/8/2015. Fixed in source code. Will make it to print for AY 2016/7. |
| In Graphical Derivatives, exercise #16 |
Please include the entire line as the asymptote. |
check
12/7/15. I have plans to create a line style that starts off sparse on one end and gets closer to solid on the other, where the arrow would point. I think this would be best. I just need some free time to get it there.
11/3/2016. Extending to full-width lines; leaving the arrows one-directional. |
| In Graphical Derivatives, exercise #11-15 |
The asymptotes are missing in Figure 4.2.8. This one is tough since the axes are the asymptotes, but could we at the very least get the labels for the asymptotes on this figure? |
check
10/5/2015. Added asymptotes and labels. |
| In the web version, in Velocity, definition of Average Velocity |
If you make the browser window just narrow enough so as to still not induce any rearranging of the paragraph text, then activate the zoom on the math content in the definition, then the zoom window is much too small. (Actually, this happens for all math content.) |
9/8/2015. Researching with MathJax user group. |
| In Limits and Continuity 2.2.1 Exercises, #6 |
The outer parentheses were omitted from (xcos(x)). Since this fundamentally changes the problem, please wait until summer to change all of the versions. |
check
6/7/2016. Fixed in source. |
|
Is it possible to make a universal change to put the table numbers and captions at the tops of the tables instead of the bottoms? I’ve always been told we put figure numbers at the bottom and table numbers at the top. My eyes always immediately look for table numbers at the top. |
10/5/2015.This is already the case for the online version. For print, there is a hitch. It could be done for standalone tables, but there are many tables that are lined up alongside graphs or blocks of text. That structure currently requires captions at the bottom and then lines them all up. It would take serious structural changes to move captions for such tables. So for now the question is, would it be better to make the change anyway for the standalone tables? Then there would be inconsistency with the other kind of table.
11/3/2016. Leaving captions below for tables and figures in the 2nd edition. Still agree that ideally, tables would have captions at the top: Why should a table caption be placed above the table? |
| In Non-existent limits, Figures 2.7.1, 2.7.2, 2.7.3 |
The asymptotes are missing labels |
check
10/5/2015. I don’t see this. In the physical print edition, the online print edition, and the web version (I used Firefox), I see the vertical asymptotes all there and labeled. Is this about horizontal asymptotes? They are left out intentionally since it seemed to me they are a distraction from the topic at hand. Should they be added?
6/7/2016. Marking this as resolved. |
| Example 3.3.2 |
In the Web version, the graph and the math overlap. |
check
10/5/2015. Fixed, I think. |
| Example 3.3.2 |
Fixing the above issue for the web version will make the math extend into the margin in the print version. Will need to address this for the next printing. |
check
11/3/2016. Looks good now in print. |
| Figure 4.1.2 |
It would be helpful if the linear piece to the far right on the graph extended all the way to (if not a little past) 7 since the students need the slope to fully answer number 1 and number 2. |
check
10/15/15. Changed in source to go all the way to 7. Can’t upload now, but soon. |
| Throughout the Manual but often in Lab 4 |
The questions/text often say things like “f has been drawn in Figure x.x.x” or “Draw g’ in Figure x.x.x” but then the caption for the figure reads “y=f(x)” or “y=g'(x)”. I’m a fan of referring to functions by their names but I don’t understand the logic of using function names in text referring to graphs but then using equations in the captions for those graphs. This seems to be a change from the old version of the Manual, where, often, the caption to a graph was simply “f” (not “y=f(x)”), and then the caption for the graph jived with the text that referred to the graph. I’m not sure about what the most logical choice is but it seems to me that it might not be precise directions to tell a student to “draw f on Figure x.x.x”.I mean, maybe they’d be correct to literally draw a big “f” in the middle of the graph! But if the directions were, “draw a graph of y=f(x)”, it would be unambiguously clear. |
question
12/7/15. I believe that now, no graph has something like “f” as its caption. Most have something like “y=f(x)”. Some have no caption at all or something else special.
As for wording the “Draw” instructions, if you want to settle on a style choice, then identify all locations of the issue, and then I can change them. But I’ll need your help in identifying those locations.
For the record though, my opinion is that the function’s name is its name. And when making a graph with x- and y-axes, you intrinsically then have to begin referring to “x” and “y” as well, where formerly in the surrounding text that was not necessary. So I don’t see the problem. (Nor do I see a problem with rewording things.) |
| Antiderivatives: 4.5.1 |
Before Exercise #9, next to figure 4.5.11, it reads, “Answer the following question…” but these directions refer to #9-16, so it should be “questions”
Also, I wonder if all of the plural “values” and “intervals” in #9-16 should be changed to “value(s)” and “interval(s)” to allow for just one such answer. |
check
12/7/15. Changed to plural “questions”, and added parentheses as noted. |
| “Continuity on an Interval”, 2.11 |
I’m concerned about how the problems in “Continuity on an Interval” are laid out, especially the last problem (#11) in the problem set. The “list” of criteria is organized like a paragraph of sentences, rather than a list, making it hard to see all of the criteria. (Students struggle enough with these problems; we need to make the list of items very clear, not buried in a paragraph.) In the other problems of this type (#9 and #10), the criteria are easier to read but I’d still rather see one single list, rather than two columns of lists since the columns are rather close together and students might think items listed next to each other are somehow related to each other.
I’m also kinda shocked at how huge the scale and labels on the graphs are: is this on purpose?! It might be good to have large grids but not necessarily ginormous scales/labels… |
check
12/7/15. Regarding the graphs, it wasn’t the scale and labels that were large; they were normal size but the web browser was magnifying the graph to fit the width. That was easy: just wrap the image in a figure. There are now additional Figures 2.11.2, 2.11.3, and 2.11.4. Since no block-level enumerated object came after this in this section, this has not affected numbering.
The main practical issue is with the layout is that if it is all spelled out in one vertical column of items, then this is awkward at best for fitting with the constraints on the print edition.
I’ve changed them to be that way, and the tall single column of conditions luckily is not causing awkward page breaking in the print edition.
However, there has been a side effect in the print edition that you may not like. With side-by-side objects, any captions have to go down below the side-by-side objects. Here, the column of conditions is so tall, that the right panel with the graph has lots of white space. Since the caption for the Figure is down low, it seems better to push the graph down low as well. And so you are left with awkward white space above the Figure. |
| Supplement, 2.14 |
Due to the previous comment, I was curious how other “draw a graph satisfying these criteria” problems looked so checked out the supplement to Lab 2, and #6 has an issue with the first column of criteria overlapping with the second column, and #7 has bullets – apparently for each item in the list – but the bullets (at least the first one) don’t seem to line-up with anything, I think making it difficult to clearly see what the items are. |
check
12/7/15. The bullets in #7 do line up, but you have to read the items carefully. There are (were) only 4 items with some groupings together within an item.
I’ll change these (#6 and #7) to be as above; they will probably have the same awkward whitespace issue in the print edition though. |
| Constant Factor Rule, 5.3.1 |
This issue only occurs in the “screen-reader version” (frankly, I don’t know how I ever even noticed this…).In the exercises, #4 appears in the margin (?) |
check
12/7/15. I don’t see this in the Power Rule (5.3) or the Constant Factor rule (5.4). I’m using Firefox, looking at Section Power Rule. If you still see this, can you say what browser, version, and OS you are using? Also, can you confirm what section you saw this in?
6/7/2016. Figured out this is about the “screen pdf”. Has something to do with how multicolumn exercisegroups are handled. That will be refactored this summer. Note: look at this again later.
11/3/2016. We’re not going to continue with a screen pdf. To read the document electronically, the HTML will be required. This means an active internet connection is needed to access the CSS and JS libraries. However, the issues that come with a screen PDF outweigh this consideration. |
| Supplement, 9.8.1 |
The graphs given in Figures 9.8.2 and 9.8.1 don’t have any scale and (unless you already know about this stuff) there’s no way to know what t is or to understand why there are short line segments between (0,0) and the points. I don’t know what to suggest but I think these figures are confusing… |
check
12/7/15. Would labeling it at 2 address the issue?
Labeling at 1 will make these too cluttered given the pure pictorial point they are trying to make. There is no need to explain what it is here beyond what the surrounding text says. Steve’s point is only to offer an explanation as to why the hyperbolic trig functions are called “hyperbolic”.
6/7/2016. Marking this as resolved. |
| Tangent Lines, Figure 3.2.3 |
The “legend” for the graph is in an opaque box that covers the “y” label on the y-axis, thus leaving the axis unlabeled. Could the box be moved or …something so that the y-axis is labeled. |
check
12/7/15. I slid the window right two units. |
| The Derivative, Example 3.3.2 |
In the third step in the work to find f'(x), there’s a missing set of parentheses around the entire object of the limit. |
10/15/15. Changed in the source. Not able to upload right now, but soon. |
| Graphs |
In order to get graphs from the Lab into my weekly graded labs, I copied the PNG available in the web version into my worksheet but when the prints came back from the Print Center the graphs were faint and not particularly reader-friendly. My first thought was that the red color of the curves was the problem but now I don’t think that’s it. Instead, I think it’s the nature of the grid lines and the fact that I like to print my graded labs on ivory-colored paper. Maybe there’s nothing that can be done in the Lab but I thought I should ask about making the grid lines a bit darker, at least in one of the many versions of each graph available in the lab. |
12/7/15. Some day we can sit down together, make several graph grid options in a single tex file, print on the ivory paper, and see what works best without having an unforeseen negative impact on the other output modes. Just let me know someday when you have time. |
| Figure 4.3.4 |
The graph of a piece of g’ is incorrect. I believe the concavity is incorrect and I know the point where the hole is incorrect. If I drew a line with slope 3 through the point on g where x=-5, I would get a secant line to g. The hole should be higher, perhaps at the point (-5,4). |
check
10/15/15. It turns out the open point on the derivative graph is at (-5, pi), not (-5, 3). We could have a totally different graph here, but it seemed like the least damage would be caused if I just labeled the coordinates of that point, which is now the case for the online version. The equation for the original curve is y=5|sin(pi/5*x)| – 2. Experiments showed that a potential future replacement could be y=-5(|sin(pi/5*x)| – 1)^2 + 3.
11/3/2016. Leaving this as indicated above with the (-5, pi) labeled on the second graph. |
| Suggested schedule |
Would it be possible to change the suggested schedule for week 4 and week 5? I would like to move 4.4 Higher Order Derivatives from week 4 to week 5. |
check
12/7/15. Moved. |
| Solutions to supplement 6.5.1 #17 |
The second and third lines of the solutions are messed up with e^d/dsin(x) instead of simply e^sin(x). |
check
12/7/15. Fixed. |
| Example 5.9.3 |
The final expression should be written over a common denominator. Also, maybe change the 3t^3 term in the original function to 3t^4 to avoid the domain issue you mentioned. |
check
12/7/15. Common denominator. Don’t want to change the problem right now mid-year. Put a note about the domain, but we can revisit it in the summer.
11/3/2016. The common denominator there. Leaving the note about the domain. (Added a similar note to the previous example.) |
| (Limits 2.1.1. Exercises) |
Caption should be y = g(t) …not g(x) |
check
12/7/15. Fixed. |
| 2.2.1 directions for 4-6 (2.2 Limit Laws) |
…can be replaced with its value base up on one of the replacements… “up on” should be “upon” |
check
12/7/15. Fixed. |
| After Table 8.1.3 (end of introduction to related rates) |
Please remove the parentheses around the word about in the conclusion. |
check
12/7/15. Fixed. |
| DREDS acronym definition |
The word “for” should be replaced with the word “four.” |
check
12/7/15. Fixed. |
| In example 8.2.1 |
The second bullet in describing the rates phrase starts with the word “drone.” The word “drone” should be replaced with the word “determine.” |
check
12/7/15. Fixed. |
| 9.3.1 Exercises, 1-6 directions |
The second occurrence of the word “following” should be followed by “the procedure outlined in Algorithm 9.3.1” |
check
12/7/15. Fixed. |
| 9.4.1 Exercises: problem 8 |
After the existing directions, the following should be added:
Then state the local minimum and maximum points on k. Specifically, address both minimum and maximum points even if one and/or the other does not exist. |
check
12/7/15. Fixed. |
| Figure 9.2.2 |
The vertical line should not be there. |
check
12/7/15. Fixed. |
| 4.2.1 Exercises |
Can we add “onto Figure 4.2.1” to the directions in #1? I have a student confused about the two figures and that would help. It could say, “For each given value on x draw onto Figure 4.2.1 a nice long line segment at the corresponding point on g… |
check
3/30/16. Fixed in source. |
| 4.7.48 |
There is a contradiction in the instructions. First, it claims that the only discontinuity is at a vertical asymptote at x=2. The last bullet however claims that the limit as x-> 4 from the left = -1 while the limit as x -> 4 from the right = 1, neither of which mesh with the second bullet point which says f(4)=3. Fix: Change the first bullet to say there are two discontinuities, one at a vert. asy. at x=2 and another a x=4.
Note from Steve. Looked up the original problem. Those limits are supposed to be about f’, not f. No other changes are necessary. |
check
3/30/16. Fixed in source. |
| Limit Laws Exercises introduction |
The paragraph before problems 4-6, “Use the limit laws to establish the value… shown in example Example 2.2.1…” Fix the unneeded “example”. |
check
3/30/16. Fixed in source. |
| Limits and Continuity |
I’ve found that there are far too many exercises in this week’s lab. Other weeks we can get almost everything done, but week 2 is just jam-packed even when I slim the list down substantially. I’m not suggesting a correction, but more asking if others have found this to be also especially true of this lab chapter. Perhaps additional questions could simply be moved to the supplement.
yes yes yes yes!! please! YES! That lab is WAY too long!! We could make a group project out of this but I vote to empower (and direct!) the author and his typesetter to select ~1/3 of the problems and move them to the supplement (or just delete them if there isn’t interest in creating their solutions). |
question
6/7/2016. Notified Steve to think about this.
11/3/2016. No change for edition 2. |
| Exercises on Antiderivatives (4.5.1) |
The wording on the problem with Jasmine and her lab assistant is difficult for students. Introducing that sine is a periodic function implies to almost all of them that the graph of sine will explain the answer to the problem. Also, the part about Jasmine being half-right is too vague for students. Perhaps instead, something like…
“Recall that a periodic function is one whose y-values repeat regularly.
a.) Are derivatives of any periodic function always periodic?
b.) Are antiderivatives of any periodic function always periodic?
c.) Only one of the answers to a or b should be “no”. Draw an example of a function that would demonstrate how this “no” would occur.”
I’m sure you can make it more clear, but I think less is more for this question. |
check
6/7/2016. Notified Steve to think about this.
6/11/2016. Added some clarifying wording provided by Steve. |
| Generally about the graphs |
I think the scales on the graphs are often difficult to “see”. In previous discussions about the formatting of the Lab, I’ve commented about how I think the scale on the axes should be in a smaller font since I think the numbers, especially the negative numbers, span so much space that it’s not obvious at a casual glance which spot on the axes the numbers refer to. Now I’ve discovered a possible explanation about why I thought the scale on the graphs was problematic: there aren’t “tics” on the axes to represent the locations that the numbers represent. Scale values like “-2” span almost two full “squares” in the grid so it’s (a little bit) ambiguous exactly what spot on the axis the scale value is representing. I think there should be “tics” on the axes so that the numbers on the scale are describing the tics. |
|
| Intro to the Chain Rule section |
In the sin(x^2) example, the variable is labeled wrong in the last sentence, “The factor of d/dz(x^2) is called a chain rule factor.” It should say d/dx(x^2). |
check
6/7/2016. Fixed in source. |
| Exercises 9.4.1 #7 |
The derivative should be stated “k’ ( x )” |
check
6/7/2016. Fixed in source. |
| 2.4 Limits at Infinity |
In the second paragraph, the second limit should say x \to -\infty |
check
11/3/2016. Fixed. |
| 3.4 Derivative Units |
“Akbar was given…” I would suggest changing it to $V'(2)$ instead of $V'(20)$, that way students are less likely to be able to argue that the tub should be empty after 20 minutes. The purpose is that they should be recognizing that the sign on the derivative is wrong. |
check
11/4/2016. Changed it to 2.
|
| 8.1 Related Rates |
“When the radius of the snowball is 1.4 cm and the snowball is melting at a rate of….” It should be 0.3cm^3/min, not 0.3cm^3/L |
check
Note to Alex: This got fixed in the PDF version very early on and it is correct in what was sent to the print center (phew!). I did note that it is still errant in the interactive version as well as the PDF “viewable” version.
12/5/2016. Fixed in the 201701 print edition, and will be fixed in the corresponding HTML. (There will no longer be a screen-formatted PDF; screen users should use the HTML version.) |
|
9.5.1 Exercises, #2-6 Intro
(Inflection points exercises) |
Sorry if this is already here, but in the printed version I have today, I just noticed that after giving the y(x), y'(x), and y”(x) functions, we’re giving g(t) and g'(t). As far as I can tell, g and g’ are not relevant here, but were for 9.4.1 Exercises #2. I think this is a cut-and-paste error, but could be missing something.
g(t) is the function from 9.4.1 Exercise 2-6 (Sign Tables for the First Derivative). It is definitely an error. |
check
12/5/2016. Fixed in source, and will be gone from the new HTML to be posted after 201604 ends. Unfortunately, this made it into the print copies for 201701 and forward. Also, there was a formatting change which makes the extra sentence more prominent. |
| In Section 5 Supplement, Table 5.12.5 |
Table lists g(x) then f’ then f” …I think it should be g’ and g” |
check
6/15/2017. Fixed. |
| Page 83 (in current print version has no page number) |
|
check
6/15/2017. The page number is there. It’s just that the section title is so long that it runs into the page number. |
| 9.4.1 #3 |
k should be g |
check
6/15/2017. Fixed. |
| Supplemental Homework Questions for Section 5, Derivative formulas |
In the current 5.12.1 Supplemental exercises for Derivative formulas #38 in the questions says s(x)=xg(x)g(x), find s'(2). However, in the solutions, it finds s'(2) for s(x)=xf(x)g(x). They should probably match. |
check
6/15/2017. Fixed. |
| Supplement for implicit Differentiation, 7.4 |
Problem #2, the fractions in the sqrt aren’t rendering properly… need more brackets. |
check
6/15/2017. The CDN for MathJax had to be discontinued in April 2017, which led to some changes we couldn’t deal with mid-year. Formerly, \sfrac was supported (slanted fraction) but the MathJax we are using right now doesn’t. However, at the next build of the HTML, we will get \sfrac back. |
| 4.2.1: Graphical Derivatives |
Minor confusion for #11-15 since they refer to functions f and f’ but there are three different graphs on the same page, and all are called f or f’. #11-14 don’t include a reference to the figure numbers: that might help clarify. |
check
6/15/2017. The first two plots are part of question 10. The third plot and the empty grid are for 11–15. There is a sentence introducing 11–15 that separates the plots. But to avoid confusion I will change “f” to “h” in 11–15. |
| 4.5.1: Antiderivatives |
A minor grammatical error in the “preamble” to #1 and #2 (text next to Figure 4.5.4): either “have” should be “has” since the subject is “each” (not “functions”), or the subject should be changed to a plural noun, e.g., “All of the linear functions in Figure 4.5.4 have…” |
check
6/15/2017. Changed the “have” to “has”. |
| 7.1 Implicit Differentiation |
Right before Example 7.1.2, the sentence ending in “…shown in Example 7.1.2” needs a period. |
check
6/15/2017. Fixed. |
| 7.1.1 General Implicit Differentiation, #7 |
In the text next to Figure 7.1.3, there’s a missing parenthesis at the end, after “…Exercise 5.” |
check
6/15/2017. Fixed. |
| 9.5.1 exercises, #3 |
I think the question should ask about the critical numbers of y’, not y. |
|
